I haven’t gone through the article, but this jumped out at me:
“In Pennsylvania, Lindell claimed that ballots accepted up to three days after Election Day were somehow tainted or proof of fraud. But, as we’ve reported, that was allowed for voters of any party. Mail-in ballots had to be received by November 6, three days after Election Day, the state’s Supreme Court ruled.”
That, which is in direct conflict with the law, just means it is fraud condoned by the state Supreme Court - which should be an alarm that there are some problems here with the way the election was conducted, right?
I followed a couple of the links substantiating the rejection of fraud, and all they really said was, “election officials deny...” no proof, just opinion, but I guess liberal opinion is about as close as they get to facts.
“In Pennsylvania, Lindell claimed that ballots accepted up to three days after Election Day were somehow tainted or proof of fraud. But, as we’ve reported, that was allowed for voters of any party. Mail-in ballots had to be received by November 6, three days after Election Day, the state’s Supreme Court ruled.”
Funny Thing, I got a reply from Pat Toomeys office. He agreed with me that this was a problem and should be illegal. He then went on to say since it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, it wasn’t worth looking into.
that is actually proof the Pennsylvania conspired to disenfranchise the citizens of other states of their vote
Check the bio at the end of Lead Stories:
https://www.atlantamagazine.com/advertise/custom-media/